Sorry, but Linda Burke, the foul-mouthed New York-transplant currently living in Hilton Head, SC, and asking mortifying questions of presidential candidates, is not a "sweet little white-haired lady."

1) Correction to my previous: It was not Just the Republicans selling Bush as "the guy you'd most want to have a beer with", it was the press.

2) Also I thought it was unfair that the other candidates didn't get to answer the question.

;c)

3) CNN really blew this event

Why yes, it is... but it's also stupid, and completely ignorant of the challenges facing America. It is disgusting that this obviously spoiled young woman has nothing better on her mind than being "cute" at such a forum, while more and more of her less fortunate fortunate fellow citizens ask themselves questions, "groceries or phone bill?", "Gas to get to work, or health insurance", or " Keep the heat on in my home, or new shoes for the kid(s)"?

And tho those who say "lighten up... we want to get to know these candidates as people.", I say remember when we were told by Republicans that George W Bush was a great guy and the candidate you'd most want to sit down and have a beer with?

Yes, I believe so. You know why? The fact that both questions regarding gender were asked by women makes it clear to me that there is an unspoken fear that if these questions were asked by men then it "would be sexist" but having the "girls" ask makes it safe and somehow OK. Really disturbing. Hillary handled all quite well. Kudos.

Good lord, folks. Every candidate running for president plays whatever "card" they may have. They want to win and will use any edge they have to out-distance their opponents. I believe John Edwards has to some degree used his sick wife to gain ground (she wanted it that way). Is that his "card"? Is Obama using his black/white heritage? Thats politics ... people running for office have to be political. I'm sure Senator Clinton expects these stupid questions. Diamonds or Pearls? - so what! But it is disrespectful. Campbell Brown is new to CNN, she must have wanted to make some kind of memorable hit to bring up the "gender card." She apparently achieved her goal because we are discussing it.

Questions have been planted since running for elected office began---from town council to president. All campaigns do it and probably all debates use it. The college student had the microphone, she could have asked any questions she wanted. Just as the college kid did in Iowa. It took her days to come forward. A tad suspicious. Every candidate has off-nights ... some have had several. Sen. Clinton has one and she is attacked from all sides for shallow reasons. The untrustworthy charge by Edwards is way over the top. I am proud to support a truly qualified candidate for president ... You Go Girl and use whatever cards you have.

Sexism is a two-edged sword.

Hillary can whine about "the boys" picking on her (and her supporters and hubby can echo it for weeks). She can play the lady card to avoid tough questions (don't pick on a girl!)

She can pick up undeniable excitement from being the first serious female candidate for President in U.S. history. That is the best thing about Hillary's campaign in my opinion. You go, girl!

And she has to face Neanderthals who will never vote for a broad. Women who are jealous of her accomplishments. Men who feel emasculated by her power.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

What would the 'news'-media do if it couldn't exercise its hypocrisy in every way - including all kinds of sexism? Remember, this is the USA (also not what it used to be).

I just want to point that "sexism" should not be understood to mean: "male dominance of women," or "male attacks against women."

That's misogyny, not sexism.

Sexism, properly understood, refers to the judgement of other human beings as products of their gender/sex.

There's no lack of "sexism" in any political candidate's campaign right now. And in fact, for as long as I've been able to observe and comprehend the American political system, sexism has been an _important_ element of every national campaign I've examined.

Is it sexist? Well, yes. But, it was faux sexism in that the substantive question already had been posed and answered to the extent it could have been in a TV debate. "Diamonds and pearls" were intended as a light ending to a tense couple of hours.

Nevertheless, this "lightness" is (as Chris Dodd is wont to say) troubling.

The very fact that CNN thought the "diamonds or pearls" question was a good way to end the debate reminds us of an underlying discomfort that is impolite for us sophisticates to acknowledge - that no woman has achieved the Presidency, and that a significant number of voters still believe that's a good thing. They don't like strong women.

The second is that CNN thought of "diamonds or pearls" as a "gift" question to the front-runner at the end of the debate. This question has no effect other than to pay Hillary Clinton a backhanded compliment and to soft-pedal criticism of her. More regrettable is that it comes from an old ugly stereotype, the image of women as grasping gold-diggers.

Imagine that a similar question had been asked of one of the men. There is no equivalent question to any of the men that could be considered anything but awful. Imagine if "which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken?" had been posed to Barack Obama. Or, if Bill Richardson had been asked, "tacos or burritos?"

I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is qualified and capable. I prefer Barack Obama because he has less ties to the unhappy past than any other candidate, and because, despite the fact TV debates are not his natural element, he is the sharpest, deepest thinker in the field, and he is the most gifted leader the Democratic Party has produced since JFK.

It is unfortunate that both the first viable woman and the first viable African-American are running against each other. It's more unfortunate that CNN thought reminding voters of one of the most insidious stereotypes in American society was a good way to end a serious debate.